Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Mayor McCrory, council members Andy Dulin and John Lassiter, can I make a request? If you don't like the city's 1 percent-for-art program, then end it. But as is, it's tediously predictable that whenever you get a presentation about what the money is being spent for, you go off on the program's administrators and trash the art.

Guess what. Their job is to administer the city program. The city program allocates 1 percent of the cost of most (not all) city projects and dedicates that money for public art.

Now, plenty of people can make good philosophical arguments for why government shouldn't be paying for art. It's a reasonable position: Art should be independent of government, because public money comes with strings attached. Public art typically isn't very cutting-edge, for instance, because that would offend the pols and they'd ax the money. Some people genuinely think art isn't what government should be doing, and I respect that view, even though I disagree.

But there are other good arguments about the value of art to the public and about the value of having artists in your city. And for now, city government (and the county, and the transit system) have concluded it's worth the fractional amount of money it takes to have public art.

The item getting people's attention is a project to put mosaic tile covers on trash cans along Central Avenue, as part of a Central Avenue streetscaping project. Here's a link to the slide presentation; mosaics are on page 6. The City Council heard a presentation on Monday, showing numerous public art projects. Dulin tallied up the cost of the mosaics – $42,000 for mosaics on the outsides of 12 trashcans, 4 mosaics each – and said, "That's $3,500 a trashcan." Then he asked if he could get one of those trashcans at the bus stop near Myers Park High School. "$3,500 per trashcan is a little bit out of line, I'm sorry," he said.

Lassiter wondered whether the primary colors of the mosaics would look good next to some murals also planned along Central Avenue, whose colors looked (in the slide show) more pastel. (Should we cut him some slack? He was suffering jet lag from a trip to Ireland.)McCrory complained – as he does whenever public art comes up – that he prefers more representational statuary that depicts people and history. "I like the statues at The Square. I just don't think we have enough of them," he said. "The most comment I get from people is the statue at Myers Park Hardware [a privately funded statue of the late, eccentric Hugh McManaway]."

There were snickers and snide remarks about several of the art works. Robert Bush of the Arts & Science Council, which administers the public arts program, was stoic. Public art administrator Jean Greer kept a pleasant smile on her face. Surely they get sick of this, every time they appear.OK, let's try it one more time: Not all art will please everyone. If it did, it would be awfully tame. Some people like abstract art, and I don't want the mayor, or any mayor, choosing what art I see. Some people prefer ancient Roman busts, or statues of nekkid goddesses or "The Thinker." But art changes with its era, and this art should reflect this era.

Putting art on a trashcan might just be a way to brighten up a part of town that, heaven knows, has felt decades of city neglect. Should all art be restricted to uptown or Myers Park, where more affluent people live? Should art not be allowed on trashcans, only walls?

54
comments:

The majority of citizens support the 1% for public art program, according to the UNC Charlotte Urban Institute, 72% of responders to a telephone survey support 1% of the cost of construction of public projects to be spent on public art.

I think public art is important, and find it comical that our public leaders pick and choose what they consder wasteful spending (pretty sure we can point to numerous projects they have supported that are substantially more wasteful than any public art project).

However, there needs to be some serious oversight as to what constitutes "art" when public money is being used. I do not consider the orange paint along the BLUE line transit bridges to be art, and think it is shameful that someone allowed any portion of the 1% allocated to that project to be used for this. Wasteful examples such as this only hurt the cause of the 1% for public art program.

All you have to do is look at the mud disks along the light rail on South Boulevard, and at the hideous mosaics along Camden Road to know that whoever's making the art decisions is insane. Those mosaics look like something that was left behind after we evicted heroin-addicted deadbeats from our Dilworth rental in the '70's. They're ugly, and they are SO dated ALREADY.

Couldn't we at least agree that the art that is purchased should be durable as to last 100 years? What do we now have for the round bushed in front of the Charlotte Coliseum? Nana. I don't think trash can lids are a good investment. They will be gone in ten years.

These tiles are handmade (not purchased from a big box store). The design involved a lot of input from local students and citizens. Calling this project stupid, a waste, ugly, etc. not only insults the artist but residents in the Central Ave. area as well. What's wrong with taking part of that 1% public art budget and using it to involve a community in neighborhood beautification?

@6:52 - You're assuming it beautifies the neighborhood. From the images of the previous "tiles" that were sold for thousands of dollars, I don't anticipate any beautification. Come on people! There are other ways to support artists - like encourage them to design good art, so private citizens want to buy it. It's sad that the government is forced to buy it just to support a cause. Sorry to all - but capitalism has a place in art as well as anywhere else. Kudos to the artist for finding someone willing to buy her crap. That's capitalism at its finest. Only, it may deteriorate quicker than the credit markets.

Trash cans are trash cans. I think they serve the purpose intended and if anything, taxpayers should have a say in whether to "artiscally decorate" them. I drive on roads with massive pot holes; see lawns that are so filled with weeds and overgrown grass, and we want to make TRASH look good? Why not utilize art students from our local universities to put their expertise to work? Who approved this contract? And, after seeing the artwork, Ugghhh! Perhaps we should look at local schools and get students involved in sprucing up our neighborhoods. For free! For the experience of cleaning up our neighborhoods. Ever think of volunteers? C'mon people. Think. Think. Think. Imagination and Creativity shouldn't cost taxpayers...not in this time. Even if the budget was approved, I would seriously re-consider this contract. There is a better way!

Define "Community". This is the first we (me, my friends, my colleagues) have heard of decorating/painting trash cans. Was it a contest? I respect the arts and agree with the Mayor...not good art...not out of MY paycheck. I know a lot of true artists that would volunteer good art for FREE. I imagine that the city of Charlotte can do better...but doesn't. Too bad.

Why don't we invest more in "performance art" rather than static objects d'art? How about a performance art piece where we take local convicts and have them act out a performance of "Local Convicts Pick up Trash Along the Road"? Or, a performance art rendition of "Convicted Gang Members Erase Graffiti"? Or, and I will volunteer to beautify my community by doing my own performance art piece entitled "Getting Up and Going To Work and the Driving Back Home". I will do this five days per week, attendance is free (along 51/Rea/Colony/Carmel/Fairview). I even have a costume, called "work clothes". I will do this performance piece for the laughably low price of $875,000 per year. Well...it's laughably low by Charlotte city leaders' standards. What a bargain!!

And why would we pay an Artist (Ms. Sanders) money when we got the winning designs from University students? In the contract, did it not specify "original illustration" as a line item expense? I'm not privvy to the contract, but would definitely be interested in the Charlotte Observer exposing the contract terms and conditions. Isn't that responsible government? Open the document. Let's see what TRASH ART truly costs.

Oh please. We all love Art. I truly appreciate beauty and the discovery of talent. But you have to believe that Trash Cans are not the priority today. Love Art. Love the Artist. Don't like the sneaky, inconceivable expense to pay an artist $42,000.00 for painting trash cans, especially when the art design, apparently, came from a student. We can find a better way. Go Artists! Go Musicians! Love Charlotee. Don't like the manner in which this project was carried out. Find a better way. Stop the project and its expense to taxpayers that had absolutely no say or information on this. Let's see the contract...Freedom of Information Act - State of North Carolina - Business Office of Charlotte, NC.

To the last comment: a city without art definitely has no soul. Think about the design in your every day life, even in the crap you buy at Wal-Mart. Would you rather live in a city where everything is built of square gray concrete, or a city where some thought is given to the design and useability of buildings and everyday objects? Why bother with beauty at all? Save loads of money, stop using decorators, stop buying posters and photos for your walls, don't buy makeup, for goodness sake, why even bother brushing your hair? There's a reason people want a little less if the ordinary in their lives.

The problem in most cities, (and I have lived in at least 8 major cities in my life) is that the so-called "art experts" who decide on these projects, are just not very tastefull. Just because it is "Public" art doesn't mean it has to be "Weird". Perhaps there would me more support if the projects were a little less inspired by hallucinigens.

I can not BELIEVE that Charlotte would call mosaics on trash cans ART. This is ridiculous! Since 1% is practically nothing, I suggest Charlotte stop paying it. Let private citizens procure the art. Then if we do not like it we can keep our mouths shut since we did not pay for it. Otherwise, give me a break!!

With all the bad, crooked things happening in our country today, to write an editorial about this stuff is worse than stupid. Come on you all, get some COMMON SENSE!!

Like religion, art has no place in public government at any level as regards subsidies, funding or favoritism.

But there is a win-win solution. You, Mary and friends can get out your checkbooks and make a donation to whatever art project strikes your fancy, and have that project come to fruition on public property. You'll get a tax deduction. I'll be happy knowing that my tax money didn't go toward something I and many other taxpayers find valueless.

In fact, I think Mary should lead a delegation of private art subsidizers to the next city council meeting to put their money where their mouths are.

Mary, apparently you've never recovered from the rejection of Gumby. We have local governments that puts 30% of school students in trailer classrooms, allows holes in the pavement of the streets to go unfilled for months, and struggles to provide other minimal basic services. But, thousands for fancy trashcans or a couple of hundred million for a Dukes of Hazard NASCAR museum: there's bottomless cash.

Let's see...$42,000 for "arty' trash cans. Isn't that about what it costs to keep a teacher on the payroll? I realize it is City not County but this idiot thinks it speaks badly about a city that will not spend money on "public art". What does it say about a city that will decorate trash cans with money that could be used to retain a laid off teacher?

In a typical landscape design class, I learned that attention should be drawn AWAY from utilitarian items such as AC units, light poles, TRASH CAN AREAS, etc. The object of good design and presentation is not to "decorate" undesirable-looking items, but to draw the eye toward the true artistic object, whether it be a beautiful garden, a sweetly architectured building, or whatever! This idea of decorated trash cans brings the eye, and the mind, toward...trash! So now we'll all focus on trash. Niiiiiiiice. (<---insert sarcasm here)

Painting trash cans while teachers are getting laid off is an insult to any taxpayer that has a brain. If this were happening in good times, it would probably go unnoticed. I do believe we need to rethink this "waste" of money.

I support the public art program. I think that it's well administered by the ASC. Public art is important for neighborhood identification and "place making". Arts funding helps recruit the "cultural class" - a much needed group of creative people to Charlotte.

It would help to point out that these were done through Garringer High School as part of a community service project.It might also help to point out that art is very subjective; "what is art" has been debated endlessly and will not be solved by this project.Furthermore, the $ spent for this is a drop in the bucket compared to real wasteful spending. If it got some high school kids involved in a project that might give them a better outlook by "being involved" then its money well spent. Check that versus the drain that Bright Beginnings is with no quantifiable results.

For the record, I firmly believe the "art" chosen for the light rail line is pathetic; the disks are a disgrace and whoever approved those choices needs to visit the Met, MOMA, or the Chicago Art Institute for a refresher course.

Finally, we have the right as citizens to criticize how our tax dollars are spent whether by informed opinion or knee-jerk reaction. Doesn't matter.However, the Observer continues to drop the ball, as does most of our local media, in explaining things thoroughly ratherthan in sound bites.But then we all know this is about ratings and not about getting at the truth.

I'd like to commend Mayor McCrory and councilmen Dulin and Lassiter for voicing the opinion of their constituents as regards these wasteful arts projects. We need more watchdogs on city council like them.

Mary, the whole problem with government funding of the arts can be traced to those “administrators” you defend.

You see, in government, once a budget or program is approved, rest assured that those administrators (i.e. managers) who proposed it will spend every last penny in that budget, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT TURNS OUT THAT THE SPENDING IS NO LONG NECESSARY, DESIRABLE OR BENEFICIAL.

In private enterprise, a manager is expected to continually pare costs and expenses, budget or no budget, depending upon demand or benefit.

No wonder those administrators were “stoic” and smiling. Sticks and stones may break their bones, but once you’ve approved their funding, you can’t break their budget. They see their job as coming up with ways to spend money, not to save it.

We need to incorporate more private enterprise thinking into government freebie budgets.

By the way, Mary, just how many millions of county or city tax money is used to fund the Arts and Science Council? If they can’t rely solely on private funding, it’s obvious they don’t have a sufficient market (support) for their “product”, and need to bite the bullet like the rest of us.

Mary, SouthPark seems to be a desirable place to work and live. I guess one could say it has soul. It certainly is unique among the various Charlotte neighborhoods and attracts a lot of people to shop, dine and party.

How did it ever manage to do so without having any public artwork? Or maybe that Chistmas tree in Symphony Park is art.

Mary, your instinct that the trash cans are the "outrage magnet" is probably right. I looked at the proposal and liked some more than others, but the trash cans seem to lack durability in the rough-and-tumble world of the street. I would predict car crashes, even theft, etc. making them too short-lived for the price.

And as always I would wish for more local artists, who may be less skilled at grant proposals, to be more actively sought for these projects.

The trash cans are actually kind of cool, if over priced. How about we have each trash can done as a school project? Clay and grout are some of the cheapest art supplies around, the kids would have a great time, and it would be at the cost of maybe..oh..$150 a trash can at the most. Many schools already have the clay, glaze and kilns needed to this. This could be expanded into a kind of adopt a can like there are adopt a street programs.

And wouldn't it be great if some of that art money was divided up into smaller portions for smaller works that more people could see around the city. It would would support more artists, and allow for more diversity. The majority of artists just don't work in a scale that large, so we don't see some of the most talented Charlotte artist involved in public art. Heck, I know a lot of artists would be willing to donate art for free..just for the exposure and experience.

Great idea but impractical. You would need industrial size molds and kilns to pull that off..unless you're talking about bathroom size cans.Also, if the large kind, these wouldn't last to long in public...very breakable. The cost of one part of a mold would be well over $150.

However, I do like the idea of a volunteer art project. Murals, park benches, tiles embedded into benches or sidewalks...

As a local artist myself, I still have to agree (shocking, I know!) with the council. $3,500 for a pretty trashcan is ridiculous. I'm sorry... I'm an artist, but I'm also a realist. I would hate to see the reaction from one of my clients if I had the gall to give them an estimate of $3,500 to cover a trashcan. It's a gross waste of money. A better idea would be to let local artists paint a can, or allow them to create art that could be printed on vinyl and applied to the outside of the cans. That would be a more practical application. When this city can't afford to pay teachers, we definitely don't need to pay an outrageous price to make a mural on a trashcan.

they aren't building the trash can themselves, they are putting mosaics on concrete cans that already exist. Just have to make the tiles, not the whole can. Take a look a the photos, they aren't actually making the trash cans, just decorating them.

Mary, while I often agree with the points you make on this blog, I have to say that you're way off base on this one. $42,000 to call attention to garbage cans is simply a waste of money. We can make far better use of these funds.

Also, if you don't want the mayor, or any mayor, deciding what kind of art you can see, you need to rethink your support of the way we pay for it.

I happen to be in favor of publicly funded art, but I accept that it will always be somewhat bland precisely because it is publicly funded. If I want to see art that really challenges my way of thinking, I need to go to a museum or gallery.

Not funding this project wouldn't save one teacher, change the cost of any capital improvement project of the City or fill one pot hole. The City has an ordinance with a clearly defined process that was followed by the Public Art Commission. If the City wants to do away with the ordinance let the debate begin; however, politicians serving as the arbitors of artistic taste is truly a stupid idea.

About Mary and The Naked City blog

Mary Newsom is an Observer associate editor and op-ed columnist who's been covering growth, neighborhoods, urban design, sustainable development and related topics since 1995. In "The Naked City" you'll read her take on those topics and others.